Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[Lik3]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

 

[Albion]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

These exact questions have been asked and answered here dozens of times and recently, too. It might be easier if you just found those threads (on Peter, Apostolic Succession, and the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) and read through them.

 

[Lik3]

What if I were to propose a debate? Has a debate been done on whether or not Peter was a Pope?

 

[pshun2404]

Pope is just the Roman word papa...it was originally a term of endearment for the overseer or bishop...the first bishop of the Church was James of Jerusalem and Peter was the first bishop in Antioch a few years later (years before he went to Rome to preach)...when he arrived in Rome there was already a Christian community there and there is no historical or ecclesiastical reason to believe he was ever an actual bishop there...perhaps (but we do not KNOW) Peter appointed Linus (the real first bishop or papa) of Rome, but nonetheless, it was never intended to be a title of some sort of authority.

However there is another sense you should understand...Paul says Timothy my son (implying Paul parented Timothy in his faith)...he meant in the faith, as it was Paul who preached to him and saw him converted (he was neither Timothys earthly father or heavenly Father), but in the faith some could consider him Timothys papa...so the term "The Pope" is nowhere found in earliest church history...the notion of one bishop of one church lording it over all other bishops was and still is repugnant to the teachings of our Lord and His Apostles (and in fact those they also taught and appointed)

In His love

Paul

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Why would you not believe in one thing not found in the bible but believe in another thing also not found in the bible?

 

[Basil the Great]

Since we have such little written material from the first 100-120 years of the Church, it is virtually impossible to know whether or not Peter was considered the Pope, aka Supreme Bishop, by the majority of the Early Church.

 

[Albion]

Since we have such little written material from the first 100-120 years of the Church, it is virtually impossible to know whether or not Peter was considered the Pope, aka Supreme Bishop, by the majority of the Early Church.

I generally support that "to the point" reply. However, I think we should add that there is no evidence and no reason to think that the Eastern Patriarchs have ever departed from their well-known opposition to Papal Supremacy, not in the first few generations all the way down to the present.

 

[Basil the Great]

Since I generally favor the EOC over the RCC by a significant margin, I would like to agree with your statement completely. However, my studies do not allow me to do so. There is at least one instance which seems to indicate that the EO may have once held to the RCC view of the supremacy of the Pope. When one Church Council was held that was not recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council, it named the Bishop of Constantinople as second in primacy among the five Patriarchs, next to the Pope. However, for some reason, history records that the Constantinople Patriarch later sent a letter to the Pope, which more or less amounted to an apology, explaining something to the effect that no insult was intended to the Pope, etc. Now why would the Constantinople Patriarch have felt the need to send an apologetic letter to the Pope of Rome, unless he was acknowledging that the Pope was his superior? Somehow I do not believe that the matter is totally clear. I do agree with you that in the first few centuries there is no real evidence to indicate that the East viewed the Bishop of Rome as supreme. However, this may have changed as the centuries went by. Still, it is clear by the time of Photius, that by then the East did not view the Pope as their supreme leader. I guess I am uncertain how the East really felt from say the 400's-the 800's.

 

[Albion]

Since I generally favor the EOC over the RCC by a significant margin, I would like to agree with your statement completely. However, my studies do not allow me to do so. There is at least one instance which seems to indicate that the EO may have once held to the RCC view of the supremacy of the Pope. When one Church Council was held that was not recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council, it named the Bishop of Constantinople as second in primacy among the five Patriarchs, next to the Pope. However, for some reason, history records that the Constantinople Patriarch later sent a letter to the Pope, which more or less amounted to an apology, explaining something to the effect that no insult was intended to the Pope, etc. Now why would the Constantinople Patriarch have felt the need to send an apologetic letter to the Pope of Rome, unless he was acknowledging that the Pope was his superior? Somehow I do not believe that the matter is totally clear.

I'd need to have more specific information in order to be able to reply without any hesitation, but I THINK that you are referring to a place of honor, not to jurisdiction (which is the issue at hand). The councils did normally seat the various patriarchs in an order, but this did not in any way amount to a recognition of who, if any, among them had authority over the others. It's Papal Supremacy that we are examining, not this. By the way, and if we focus on the word "primacy," there are plenty of Anglicans who have said they'd be willing to agree to the bishop of Rome's historic title, "Patriarch of the West" so long as it wasn't misunderstood as acknowledging any claims on his part to jurisdictional supremacy.

I do agree with you that in the first few centuries there is no real evidence to indicate that the East viewed the Bishop of Rome as supreme. However, this may have changed as the centuries went by.

In theory, yes, but I don't think you would be able to find the evidence needed to show it a fact.

 

[pshun2404]

Cyprian, a bishop under the auspices of Rome, in his Unity of the Church wrote...

…to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal authority, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity...

Peter being the first among EQUALS does in no wise designate him to some authoritative position ABOVE the others...and then if Peter being the first Bishop gives that Church or their bishop "authority" then by all means we need to all become Antiochian Orthodox immediately...

Paul

 

[football5680]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

So we must find every word in the bible to justify our beliefs? Well, there goes the trinity, I can't find that word.

Here is the etymology of the word.
Pope-from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father."

Jesus appointed Peter to this position.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

The word Peter means rock and his name was changed from Simon.

 

[Albion]

So we must find every word in the bible to justify our beliefs? Well, there goes the trinity, I can't find that word.

You just asked about "beliefs." Then you said you couldn't find the WORD Trinity in the Bible. No, but you can find the belief there.

Here is the etymology of the word.
Pope-from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father."

Jesus appointed Peter to this position.

Talk about a non-sequitur. There's nothing in Scripture or history that shows us that Peter was a Pope or thought of himself as one. And he didn't ordain any successors.

 

[St. Paul]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

No. If there was a first pope after Jesus' death it would've been James. He was the leader of the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death.

 

[saintandrew4life]

the catholic church says peter was the first pope

 

[Edward65]

the catholic church says peter was the first pope

The RC church says a lot of things that aren't true.

 

[barryatlake]

Yes, some people" think" the Church says a lot of things that are not true, the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church can never be wrong, if it is wrong then Jesus is wrong and Jesus is never wrong because Jesus gave all power and His Authority to His Church, read Luke 10:16.

 

[Albion]

Yes, some people" think" the Church says a lot of things that are not true, the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church can never be wrong, if it is wrong then Jesus is wrong and Jesus is never wrong because Jesus gave all power and His Authority to His Church, read Luke 10:16.

I hate to break it to you, but Jesus was speaking to seventy-two different followers on that occasion and made no mention of the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination.

 

[Edward65]

Yes, some people" think" the Church says a lot of things that are not true, the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church can never be wrong, if it is wrong then Jesus is wrong and Jesus is never wrong because Jesus gave all power and His Authority to His Church, read Luke 10:16.

The One True Church is made up of all true Christians who adhere to the teaching of the Apostles and this therefore excludes those who follow the teaching of the popes, since what the popes teach doesn’t agree with what the Apostles taught.

The gates of hell can never overcome the True Church, but since the gates of hell have overtaken the false church of the popes (not the true Roman church), it isn't the True Church.

 

[barryatlake]

Edward, if you would kindly turn to { Matt.18: 15-18} in your KJV you will understand that Jesus is referring to His One True Apostolic Church [ Luke 10:16 ] Back in Matt.16 we see where the "keys' were only given to St.Peter and not to Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc. Peter passed the "keys'' onto Linus the second bishop of Rome

 

[Albion]

Edward, if you would kindly turn to { Matt.18: 15-18} in your KJV you will understand that Jesus is referring to His One True Apostolic Church [ Luke 10:16 ] Back in Matt.16 we see where the "keys' were only given to St.Peter and not to Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc. Peter passed the "keys'' onto Linus the second bishop of Rome

Except that Peter never did pass anything on to Linus, keys or anything else. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which considers Linus to be the second bishop of Rome, admits that he was not named by Peter to be his successor, given any authority by him, wasn't consecrated (ordained) a bishop by Peter, or anything of the sort. The townspeople of Rome had to send for him after they decided he would be a good choice to take over, following Peter's death.